The agenda for Tuesday night’s Council Meeting is a mixture of more gobbledygook plus a few new dirty tricks. We will go through some of these.

Pools Steering Committee Minutes – 1^st December 2011.

“The builder’s revised program suggests further delays in relation to the gym and stadium. As these elements are not on the critical path, these works should not delay overall completion of the works. Unfortunately, officers are aware of other works that are not tracking as per the revised program. These delays (primarily in the pool hall) have the potential to further delay works. Officers have advised the builders of their concerns.”

COMMENT: If the gym and stadium are not on the ‘critical path’ does this mean that there are more serious problems with construction that have lead to the delay?

Under the heading Cash Flow – nothing, zilch, a big zero!

Budget/Variations

“There are a number of additional deductions under the contract. A quantity surveyor is currently valuing these works. Council continues to levy liquated (sic) damages.”

COMMENT: ‘additional deductions’ is a fascinating phrase. We suggest that what this is really referring to is that the original GESAC design is being cut back because of the cash flow crisis. Of course this will be trumpeted as GESAC coming in even further ‘under budget’. But residents should know what corners are being cut and what this suggests about the final quality of the building and facilities.

Critical Issues

The next paragraph is unintelligible and we are continually astounded at how such nonsense can be released into the public domain – “There are a number of active critical issues that officers continue to manage (some of which confidential has they relate to contractual matters). Critical issues include planning for handover of the facility from the builder, commissioning and managing delays in the program.”

COMMENT: Residents may as well forget January as the opening of the site. Again, the phasing is sublime in its attempts to camouflage the truth – “This would mean the facility would not open to the community until after the end of January”. ‘After the end of January – can only mean February, maybe even March’. But it sure sounds better to say ‘January’ rather than the later months! And no further meetings until ‘some time in January’!

DIRTY TRICKS

For the first time EVER a councillor’s ‘Right of Reply’ is published in the agenda items, rather than after it has been delivered at council meeting and then appears in the Minutes of that meeting. We can only speculate as to the thinking behind such a new ‘initiative’. Is this meant to ensure that Penhalluriack sticks 100% to the published script? That if he diverges by one single word, then Hyams and his cohorts will leap to their feet and declare a point of order?

Hyams is also very, very busy again requesting amendments to various previous minutes according to the Records of Assembly.

One other point we’ve noticed is that on all previous occasions when ‘legal advice’ and OH & S matters were discussed BOTH Penhalluriack and Newton left the room. (See 15^th November for example). However, the minutes of 22^nd November (after Newton has got his reappointment!) there is no mention of Newton departing even though the items cited were: “”Under s89(2)(a) ‘Personnel” of the Local Government Act 1989 re OH &S compliance” and “under to (sic) s89(2)(f) ‘Legal advice”, and (h) “may prejudice the Council or any person” regarding OHS legal advice.”

MURRAY RD DEVELOPMENT

This application is for a 4 storey building comprising 31units. Officers recommend permit for 30 units. What caught our eye again was this sentence: “In principle, there are a number of factors which make this site appropriate for medium density development at the scale proposed:

• It is located within close proximity to the Hawthorn Road tram route and shops;
• It has abuttal to a tall 3 storey commercial building to the north and a single storey commercial building to the east (both fronting onto Hawthorn Road);
• it has abuttal to two storey flats to the east”

COMMENT: When did a 30 unit development suddenly become ‘medium density’? Why the use of the word ‘tall’ in ‘3 storey commercial building’. Three storeys is three storeys surely? But what is most laughable is the logic of the argument – because of the existence of a 3 storey building and a 2 storey building then this seemingly justifies the granting of a permit for a 4 storey building! A small paragraph then follows – “Whilst the proposed development will be taller and more robust in its build form than adjoining existing development, it is considered that it represents what policy expects in terms of reasonable change to the character of this street being within a Housing Diversity Area”. We congratulate the planning department for its expertise in the use of euphemism and spin and simply wonder where in the planning scheme does the policy state its ‘expectations’ as to medium density meaning 30 units on one lot?

Audit Committee Minutes – 27th November 2011

“The Committee noted the Auditor-General’s issuing of a high risk rating for Council based on a low liquidity ration as at 30 June 2011. Officers confirmed that the overall high risk rating was due to the liquidity ration of 0.95. The CFO stated that the monthly finance report to Council now included an additional liquidity section. The CFO also confirmed that Council should continue with all planned operating and capital expenditure, but should avoid any unplanned expenditure proposals. He said that delaying any planned capital expenditures such as the roads program or the warm season grasses program may have a negative impact on future renewal costs. The Chairman requested that Councillors be made aware, particularly at the strategy workshop, of the spending impact on the liquidity ratio. He also requested close monitoring of Council’s liquidity position and asked the CFO to report back at the next Audit Committee meeting”.

COMMENT: Another Machiavellian strategy by the CFO (Chief Financial Officer)? It’s okay to spend an unbudgeted for million on extending the car park at GESAC and relocating the playground, but not okay to delay roads and sporting ovals? Again, the logic is mind boggling, especially when you consider that many of these roads are repaved yearly! All in all, we suspect that this is a not so subtle warning to councillors to watch their “p’s and q’s” and not to interfere with the grand plans laid out by Messrs Newton and co – for example such as the recent funding of Take a Break and the attempt by Cr. Magee to have public toilets installed in Bentleigh. The message seems clear – it states “butt out councillors and let us continue as we will”!!!!

Dear MBA members,

The mediation between McKinnon and Oakleigh took place yesterday(Wednesday)  We assume that the outcome of this will be discussed at next Tuesday’s Council Meeting, following which we will know more.

In the meantime, we strongly recommend that you continue to write to your Councillors encouraging them to make a decision in the best interests of McKinnon Basketball Association, their local and largest Basketball Association.  Please contact the MBA office if you require a list of the specific MBA credentials.

Source: http://www.sportingpulse.com/assoc_page.cgi?client=1-4059-0-0-0

Paragraphs 32, 33 and 35 from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2011/2220.html

The hearing of this case extended over two days. On the first day of hearing the responsible authority and the objectors presented their cases. The case was part heard with the evidence and submissions on behalf of the applicant company remaining to be heard. During the interim suggestions of possible problems with this proposal attributed to council engineers were raised. I am not impressed. This case had, in any event, been complicated by incorrect advice offered by the council and its engineers in relation to drainage questions. Apparently, there was once a drainage pipe that ran across this site. At some stage this arrangement was reconsidered when a two metre wide easement down the eastern side boundary was proposed. Provision was made for there to be an agreement under s 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for a two metre easement in that location. This agreement was executed but never registered at the Titles Office. That omission is the responsibility of the responsible authority.

The company was told that there is no pipe or drainage works in the easement so that it could be built over. This occasioned a redesign to make use of that area. Then the council informed the company that there was, after all, a pipe in this locality so that the area could not be built over. The applicant company redesigned its proposal. 

Another aspect, arising between the hearings, is that the council engineers have apparently, and belatedly, decided that they would like to acquire control over a further one metre wide strip along the two metres wide easement. The suggestion is that there should be no building over a three metre wide strip. This is said to be on account of a “local law”. Perusal of the local law shows that it makes no such provision. The only basis for it is some adopted council resolution or policy in relation to this one metre wide acquisition of control. There is no proposal to acquire such a right on any basis that would involve just compensation to the land owner. In my opinion, there is no legal basis for the claim to an extra metre width along that two metre strip. At least none was suggested. I note that the local law and the “policy” are not part of planning laws. I do not think that they create any legal requirement in real property law that detracts from the property rights of the owner of the land.

Council playing favourites, racing club claims

5 Dec 11 @  02:33pm by James Twining

A RIFT has emerged between Moonee Valley’s racing club and council over the draft racecourse master plan, just weeks after the proposal was officially submitted.

The club says it was “excluded” from a public information session run by the council last Thursday night but that the rival Save Moonee Ponds residents’ group – campaigning against the club’s draft master plan and rezoning – was given a platform to slam the proposal at the meeting.

Club spokesman Brian O’Neil said the club was “perplexed” by SMP being given floor time at the information session, attended by more than 100 people.

“The (club) is extremely disappointed that council excluded it from (the) information meeting, yet gave a resident action group a 30-minute presentation and a seat at the head table from which to voice their opposition to our proposals,” Mr O’Neil said.

Council chief executive Neville Smith said the council was approached by SMP for support.

“Save Moonee Ponds is a newly formed community group,” he said.

“They are not a large profitable organisation like the Moonee Valley Racecourse.

“Save Moonee Ponds approached council for some support to help them raise awareness of their group and issues. We thought the best place to do that was when we were getting the community together for our information evenings.”

Mr Smith said the community meetings – another was held on Sunday – were to share information about the planning process and not to go into detail about what was proposed.

He said the racing club would “definitely” be involved in the formal consultation process, to start in the first half of 2012.

By way of further contrasts we’ve uploaded 2 presentations – one by the Moonee Valley Council and the other by the Save Moonee Ponds Group. Please note:

• The fact that this council features resident advocacy groups material on its official website
• The council’s ‘consultation’ will include online surveys, facebook pages, etc. (see their presentation)

Even these two simple things are a standout in comparison to the Glen Eira methods employed for the C60 and the Centre of the Racecourse debacle.

// Comments

From Port Phillip Council minutes – 5th December 2011

ADDRESS BY THE NEWLY ELECTED MAYOR OF THE PORT PHILLIP CITY COUNCIL

The Mayor, Cr Powning assumed the Chair, and addressed the gallery as follows:

Good evening all and thank you for coming along tonight. I’d like to acknowledge the presence of parliamentary representative Sue Pennicuik.

Thank you Councillors for your support.

So we now find ourselves in the last year of our four year term, feeling weary no doubt. And though we have achieved much over the past 3 years, I know you all have a strong desire to achieve much more and of course faster.

But on this occasion I think it’s important that we pause and look at what we have achieved over the past year, which is a great deal. We have continued with our commitment to the principles of good governance – maximum transparency (no confidential matters), extensive consultation (so much time and energy, but of course worth it) and have encouraged local participation through our numerous reference committees, again which take enormous amounts of councillor time and energy but so important.

We entered the year with a new State government to work with, and in the interests of Council and our community as a whole, we have struck a respectful and I hope effective working relationship with this new State government, despite some clear differences at times on our respective views of the world.

This has been much supported by a number of our Liberal local members, and we have been impressed by their professionalism and keenness to work with us to achieve the best for our communities.

At this point I must also comment on the vigour and passion shown by Martin Foley in his new role as Labor opposition member – Martin has made the transition from government to opposition with the greatest of skill, and I can only imagine it must be a very difficult transition to make. Your commitment to achieving the best for our community and your long term vision for Albert Park is as clear as ever.

Councillors this third year of our term has seen us achieve some significant milestones, and though its tempting to read through them all, but for the benefit of you and the gallery, I will resist and focus on the highlights.

This year has seen Council adopt a Responsible Gambling Policy and a Social Justice Charter for the first time ever. These critical pieces of policy express this Council’s long standing and fundamental support for the principles of social equity, and also our willingness to challenge those social factors which we know create disadvantage and injustice.

We have made some real progress in the area of climate change, and have adopted several important strategies, which will drive our response to this critical issue, including the Walk Plan, the Cycling Plan and our Greenhouse Action Plan.

Our last budget saw us increase our expenditure on climate change to $8.5 million. Although there is more we can and will do Councillors, money talks and we are now starting to shout.

2011 also saw Council continue down the path with many critical infrastructure projects, including the development of our two children’s hubs in St Kilda and Port Melbourne, and when completed these centres will mean new childcare places for hundreds of our local families.

We have also achieved much in Emerald Hill, with the Emerald Hill Vision project, and as early as next week we hope to be ready to start the detailed design of the new Emerald Hill Library and Heritage Centre.

We are of course all excited by the possibility of a skatepark for Port Phillip being finished in 2012, and we have made more progress on the Triangle with the release of a new vision and principles document, which reflects what our community want for this important site.

We will soon see the design process for a new aged care facility in Port Phillip, again a great outcome for our community and one which Council has made a significant contribution to.

Next week we will release the draft urban design framework for the critically important Port Melbourne precinct, and of course I can’t resist gloating about our advocacy skills Councillors which resulted in the bi-partisan commitment to fund the upgrade of the Balaclava Station – which was a real win for this community.

There’s so much more I would like to highlight Councillors, not because it’s a chance to brag, but because I think it’s so important that all here understand how hard you have all worked to achieve these things on their behalf. Being a councillor at Port Phillip is a really very tough job, often unacknowledged, and I have been consistently impressed by the level of energy and enthusiasm each councillor has brought to their role, it is a fortunate community indeed which has this level of dedication from its local representatives. We are a great Council and we are doing great things.

Over this final year of our term, we will work hard to continue to deliver our vision for Port Phillip as detailed in our four year plan.

Naturally we will be presented with new challenges as we head into the election year – we will be subject to more criticism than usual, especially from potential candidates, as we all know one doesn’t get elected to council by saying what a great job the current council is doing.

So during the year ahead Councillors I urge you to continue to treat one another with the respect of which I have been so impressed again and again. The local government model of governing means we can only be effective if we work together – not one of us can achieve anything much alone.

And speaking of working together, I would like to acknowledge the dedication of our CEO Kay Rundle and Council’s executive management team. We Councillors know that you all put in a huge amount of time and energy to your roles, and I think I speak for all when I say we have been impressed by the unfailing respect you have shown us as the elected representatives of this fine municipality.

To my good friends, some of you here tonight, – can I ask you to hang in there – hopefully one day I’ll be able to go out and just have fun again for a change, instead of just inviting you to events where I give yet another wretched speech.

And in closing can I thank my family for their unfailing support. To Michael and Bridget, I know that you are both proud of my work but it doesn’t make it any easier when I am out for four nights of the week, or working all day on the weekends. Without your encouragement of course I wouldn’t be able to do this job. And by this time next year our new little Tommy rocket will be running around this chamber and creating total chaos at home, so plenty more challenges ahead.

But as one political leader once said, life wasn’t meant to be easy, (we all know who that was), and as another said more recently, when presented with 2 paths to choose from, always take the more challenging – (which is what we’ve done for sure). I’ll buy a drink for the first person to guess who said that.

Thank you.

The original application was for a 14 storey development at 221-229 Glen Huntly Rd. Council granted a permit for 7 storeys. In this decision, VCAT approved the amended plans by the developer and granted a permit for 10 storeys. Below are some extracts from the decision. The full transcript may be read at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2011/2203.html

“The officers considered that the proposed development at 10 storeys was appropriate given the location of the site within the housing diversity area, having had regard to the VCAT decision acknowledging the strong policy support for high density development with regard to a development at 233-247 Glenhuntly Road Elsternwick in February 2010^[. Therefore, it is the Tribunal’s position that a multi-storey mixed-use development is appropriate on the site. However the three groups of conditions that have been appealed by the Permit Applicant in this case revolved around height and external appearance of building and the objectors concerns relate to car parking, access to the site and off-site amenity impacts

We consider that a multi-storey development on this site is consistent with the vision of the Elsternwick Urban Village where the statement for the retail hub requires:

The height of residential development be determined by:

1. Site context, including the scale and character of surrounding development.
2. Site characteristics, including area, dimensions, orientation and topography.
3. Existing development on the site, including height, bulk and site coverage.

Council in its final decision required the overall building height to be reduced to seven storeys and amended plans were then prepared. The Permit Applicant prepared amended plans for a 10 storey building generally in accordance with the recommendations of Council’s officers”.

AND FROM TODAY’S ‘AGE’

Building permits system damned

Clay Lucas and Adam Carey

December 7, 2011

VICTORIA’S building permit system is broken, with little evidence to show even minimum construction and safety standards are being upheld, according to a report by state Auditor-General Des Pearson.

The report, to be tabled today in Parliament, will reveal that 96 per cent of 401 building permits examined by the Auditor failed to comply with basic standards. It provides a damning critique of the Building Commission, the state agency that regulates construction standards in everything from home extensions to major city towers.

The $24.3 billion-a-year construction industry, instead of being properly regulated, ”depends heavily on trust which is neither guided nor demonstrably affirmed by reliable data on the performance of building surveyors”, says a leaked draft of the report obtained by The Age.

”Our results have revealed a system marked by confusion and inadequate practice, including a lack of transparency and accountability for decisions made. In consequence, there exists significant scope for collusion and conflicts of interest,” the draft report states.

Building Commissioner Tony Arnel – who has been in his position for 11 years – is legally prohibited from commenting on the report before it is tabled.

Planning Minister Matthew Guy, who oversees the Building Commission, would wait to read the report before commenting, a spokesman said.

The Building Commission was established 17 years ago to regulate council and private building surveyors, and to monitor how effectively surveyors enforce building laws.

The Auditor found that damning reports on the commission’s work in 2000 and 2005 had been ignored, and that it had fundamentally failed to do its job. ”The commission cannot demonstrate that the building permit system is working effectively, or that building surveyors are effectively discharging their role to uphold and enforce minimum building and safety standards,” the draft report says.

It also finds that while the commission monitors the number of complaints against builders, little is done to monitor whether surveyors do their jobs properly.

Surveyors assess and approve building permits and check that work meets the standards of building laws.

Speaking ahead of the report’s release, the president of the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors’ Victorian chapter, Con Giazi, admitted the Auditor had highlighted ”deficiencies”. But he said the failures were a case of poor administration, not lax safety standards.

The report warns of possible collusion between surveyors and clients because of ”inadequate monitoring and enforcement” by the commission.

The Auditor randomly selected 401 building permits lodged with Melton, Monash and Mitchell councils.

Audit office inspectors found ”the vast majority” of permits examined failed to adequately document whether buildings met all requirements. They found far more problems with commercial buildings than with new houses. The report also found serious problems with:

■Adherence to town planning requirements.

■Site plans inconsistent with properties in 167 of 319 cases.

■Fire safety standards.

■Demolition works, with little evidence of adequate precautionary measures.

Big builders this week rallied around Mr Arnel and the commission before the release of the report. Grocon chief Daniel Grollo said Victoria’s building industry was ”as efficient, if not more efficient [than anywhere] in Australia. Any process can be improved, but we don’t see any evidence that the system is broken. Is the issue one of record keeping or is it [problems] with the building itself?”

Executive director of the Housing Industry Association Gil King said the problems identified were about paperwork, not safety. ”Very rarely do we see major faults in the structure of buildings,” he said.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/building-permits-system-damned-20111206-1ohcf.html#ixzz1fnVdn3Wx

Numerous angry residents have contacted us in regards to another event held today at the Caulfield Racecourse. This time it was the CFMEU (construction workers) annual picnic. By all reports traffic was mayhem, noise unbelievable, and of course, cars parked in the racecourse itself. Entrance for union members was $30!

We raise this issue since events at the racecourse are proliferating at an incredible rate. In fact the Glen Eira News itself is featuring a large advertisement for a ‘food’ spectacular early next year.

Residents were lead to believe that an ‘agreement’ exists between Council and the MRC as to the number of events permissible per year outside of racing. But what has never been made clear is WHEN this agreement is supposed to actually start! There’s up to a 5 year leeway for removal of fences. Again, when does 5 years start – in three years’ time? All appears to be in favour of the MRC and council sits silently by and allows public amenity to be abused time and time again. Either there is an agreement with a specific starting date or there isn’t. It’s about time that this Council fessed up to what is really going on.

We’ve smashed another record! Our weekly hits tallied 5,071 – making it an average of over 720 hits per day. Obviously our posts are reaching an increasingly growing audience who are interested in local affairs and what is happening in this Council.

We reiterate out commitment to providing readers with an outlet for their views and opinions and in the process ensuring that this council is made accountable for all its decisions and actions.

Change management and succession planning are some of the buzz words found in the corporate world. Those at the top generally recognise that they have time limits on their tenure and for the company to flourish and advance new blood must be continually groomed, sought and introduced. This is also true of local government. In order to attract all the new bright things, people with talent and ambition and who thrive on challenges, the old must make way for the new. With no chance of advancement anyone worth a cracker from within the organisation will seek positions elsewhere whilst attracting outside talent is a forlorn task – especially if they perceive there is no room for advancement.

In Glen Eira, as opposed to numerous other councils, we seem to be stuck with the old. There just isn’t any space at the top. Some might argue this means “stability”. Others may see this as stagnation and a detriment to the organisation. It all depends on results and point of view. Bayside obviously welcomes new blood – in droves. According to their website, the most senior officers have ALL been at the council for less than 3 years – that is, not just in their current positions, but newly arrived at Bayside. They are listed as:

Heather Johnson – Director community services – arrived 2008

Shiran Wickramasinghe – Director City Strategy –  arrived 2010

Guy Wilson-Browne – Director Infrastructure Services –  arrived 2008

Sharon Pearsons – Director Corporate Services – arrived  2008 –

Andrew Robb CEO – 2008

Glen Eira’s story stands in stark contrast. Note that the following years DO NOT NECESSARILY SIGNIFY WHEN THESE INDIVIDUALS FIRST ARRIVED AT COUNCIL – ONLY WHEN THEY ACQUIRED THEIR CURRENT ROLES.

Paul Burke –2001

Peter Jones – 2003

Peter Waite –2006

Jeff Akehurst – 1996

Peter Swabey –2004

Andrew Newton – 2000

Gibbs & McLean (Audit Committee) – at least since 1998!

So we can only ask: How long is too long? – especially when it is the CEO alone who has control over his lieutenants!

On 28^th November 2011 a public question at Bayside City Council asked for information on each councillor’s academic qualifications and the courses each had undertaken since becoming a councillor. Information was also requested on the cost of these courses to Council. We’ve copied the responses and provide them in the public interest. We note specifically the number of councillors who have undertaken Director courses and wonder how many, if any, of our councillors have completed similar courses.

Academic Qualifications

Del Porto – B.A. (Hons) M.A Melb; Post Grad Sec. ACU

Hayes – Adv. Dip App. Sci. (Farm Management)

Long – B.A. (Multidiscipline)

Norris – M.A, M. Sc (Econ)

Frederico – B. Bus. (Mktg) Certificate of Business (Tourism)

Cooper-Shaw – B. Comm, B-Ed. Grad Dip Criminology; M.A. (applied Psych) M. Ed.

Russell – Nil